Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

I am enjoying this thread!

Nice. By the way, Happy Korematsu's Birthday!!

I find this question a bit strange. Do you believe that only citizens of the United States have real Constitutional rights?The answer is of course that green card holders do not have all of the rights of citizens. They are subject to removal proceedings if they violate immigration law, and they cannot vote. But having them reside in this country without every other right would be pretty funky. Even illegal immigrants have due process rights.

How is sovereignty a problem when discussing what rights with respect to the US that anybody will have once they reach our country? It is not as though giving due process or any other constitutional right here in the US affects what the other country can do to its own citizens. It would not, for example, keep a foreign country from disallowing travel to the US.Your position makes no sense legally. Perhaps sovereignty is not the issue you meant to discuss. Assuming such a thing is even possible...

An order directing a federal agency to commit illegal activity is not legal. Issuing such an order is not, however, a criminal act. What is a punishable act is disobeying a court order to cease and desist.

That's may be a reasonable request. In particular, Trump's team may have learned better ways to coordinate a plan that requires the cooperation of multiple entities, and they might also have learned how to handle court orders.My problem with this particular incident is that the errors seem to stem more from arrogance rather than carelessness. But getting the next few things correct might dispell that impression.

Partially addressing the somewhat more difficult question regarding refugees, there probably is not a constitutional question there. However there may be a treaty obligation, and of course, ratified treaties are also a source of federal law not to be ignored.The 1951 Refugee Convention leaves plenty of room for a president to decline to accept refugees for security reasons, at least where incoming refugees not already processed are concerned. The Convention does not give rights with regard to international travel although it does say that refugees should be treated like citizens for domestic travel.There may also be some statutory provisions, and the president cannot be able to contravene statutory provisions of law without the cooperation of Congress. Apparently, there aren't any serious statutory protections for refugees with respect to due process upon re-entry to the US, or even gaining entry in the first place.

I think we can say a bit more than that. We might distinguish between a list of countries for which we scrutinize its citizens upon entry, and a list of countries from whom we don't even allow green card holders to return to their families and from which we don't allow folks we've already scrutinized, sometimes for years. Obama never had a list of countries, for which the citizens of those countries were not allowed to return to university after a Christmas break.

You could not possibly have checked this before posting. Of course, there are instances of both Trump supporters and non-supporters attacking their opposition.My rule of thumb for you is that anything you post in all caps should immediately be fact-checked.

Yes, it is the case that I did not provide an example. However, unlike you, I do check things before I run my mouth. And it's not like those examples are difficult to find... at least not if you bother to look.What I said was that there were Trump haters and Trump detractor who assaulted their opposition. So your having found some Trump supporters who were assaulted does not even challenge my argument. My point is, and remains that you are utterly incapable of vetting what you say.If you want an example of a Trump supporter who assaulted someone I supply the name of Airforce Staff Seargent Tony Pettway who sucker punched a non- Trump supporter. If you want a second example, I offer John McGraw of NC who assaulted opposition supporter. Anyone competent could find these with next to no effort. Both got lots of press.When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, it was the latest of many occasions when the leading Republican candidate for president appeared to condone or accept violence by supporters.
Air Force Staff Sergeant Charged with Assault at Trump Rally | Military.com"I am not aware". Yeah, I can understand that. Being unaware is what you do. But given the fact that you don't check, telling us you are unaware means just about nothing.

The problem with your argument is that regardless of what the statute says, the Constitution requires due process, and Congress and the president cannot decide to do away with a constitutional provision. Now go back and read the judge's orders and examine the basis for the rulings.

ffsEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

These kinds of questions are inane. You believe all kinds of stuff that can be proved to be nonsense, much of it in the face of strong evidence to the contrary of your beliefs. You, more than anyone else here are prone to putting fingers in your ears and yelling (typing in all caps) at the rest of us when you get frustrated.Why do you not believe other religions are benign? I don't know. Why do you believe left leaning people hate America? Why do you believe that mutations cannot provide genetic diversity? Why do you believe folks who say that Sessions is non-racist over those who recount his documented racists acts? Why don't you believe that terrains can become rock layers?Why at this point would pointing out to us that your beliefs are not rational be persuasive. We know that you are sincere, but we also know that you cannot vet even your own arguments, let alone someone else's.

Faith, what you are doing here is taking on a sucker's bet. The percentage of Muslims in this country is tiny; on the order of 1 percent. The total population of Muslim's is something on the order of 3 million out of a US population of over 300 million. If you really want to press the issue, you would instead ask about who was more violent per capita.Terrorism is responsible for something on the order of 50 people last year with most of those occurring at the Pulse nightclub. On the other hand, something like 11000 folks were killed in gun homicides alone last year.There is no rational justification for Trump’s travel ban - Vox
Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security -Now I am sure you will want to argue that anyone who kills is not a true Scotsman or Christian, but such arguments aren't worthwhile.